A comment left on redlettermedia's MoS review by someone named Ass Hat:

Butthurt. OH MY GOD look at all this butthurt. This is butthurt that I will be able to tell my grandkids about someday. Sitting on the front porch with a glass of lemonade in my hand, while little Timmy and little Sally run up to me wide-eyed...

"Grandpa, Grandpa! Tell us a story!"

"About my time in World War III?"

"No! No! About the great Butthurt Act of 2013 that we learned about in history class today!"

"Ah. What a dark time it was. Well, kids. Many, many years ago, when I was a much younger man...there was one of those moving pictures that came out that they called 'Man of Steel.' This moving picture was a retelling of the age-old story of Superman. When it came out, the movie was hated by many and loved by many. While many were respectful towards opposing views, some reacted with venomous words. They are nearly extinct today, but back then they were known as "Fanboys" and they were a loathsome, virginal lot. You see, another man about 35 or so years earlier made a couple of these Superman pictures. The people who hated this 'Man of Steel' were accused relentlessly of being loyal to the early Donner pictures when it wasn't the case. The ones who hated it complained of such fundamental things. Things that were necessary for every other picture ever made, yet the Fanboys convinced themselves that these things did not apply to 'Man of Steel.' Things such as the writing. Characters with purpose. Structure. Feelings! Nevertheless, the Fanboys were convinced that those who hated it were "stupid and just didn't get it," and given a black "S" to wear on our clothing.

"You mean that people didn't like it because it had no soul, Grandpa?"

"That's correct, my dear. You see, this was back in the time when these things became less common place. Writers were losing their touch and the almighty box office opening weekend was the only consideration, and moving pictures became soulless, noisy things without heart or emotion. People began mistaking emotional investment with characters with slow-motion explosions with sad orchestral music and choirs playing over them. Or a slow-motion image of a man underwater or in space with his arms spread like Christ. They became confused and manipulated. Standards bottomed out. Things like this are what the Fanboys came to expect and demand, violently if they had to."

"So...so what happened?" I lit my pipe.

"Well, Timmy, things changed. They started calling this sort of thing "ADHD cinema." Films that celebrated style over substance without any sense of adventure or hope. Those who disliked 'Man of Steel' were forced into camps. They were tortured and made to watch the picture several times and repeat things like "This is not Richard Donner's Superman" and "I didn't understand the great 'Man of Steel's' true genius" thousands of times over, daily. However, they revolted. The case was made because they had science on their side. An institution back then known as Rotten Tomatoes, before they replaced the executive branch of the government, came to our aid. They argued that the film was universally "rotten" with a score of 56%. The Fanboys argued that the system was flawed. They were right, but their argument of "your just stipid adn gay" didn't hold up. They knew they had lost."

"So what happened then?"

"Well, this series of events brought about the Butthurt Act of 2013. It put into law that any Fanboy who decides to slander someone in disagreement is banished into the exile of watching another moving picture from 1998 called 'Godzilla.' You see, this 'Godzilla' picture had the same flaws as 'Man of Steel,' yet no one criticized anyone for not liking it as it had no support. The 'Godzilla' picture was also a reinvention of a classic yarn. It was about a radioactive lizard who destroys civilizations along with great numbers of their people. This picture also lacked any kind of creativity in its writing, characters, or story just the same as 'Man of Steel.' Yet with that 'Man of Steel' picture, people were told that they weren't smart enough to understand the brilliance of the poor writing. They were told they were partial to Marvel, a group who were also in the superhero business. The moral of the story is, kids...people who don't like something usually have good reasons for doing so. Fanboys who like these pictures were never able to understand that and made up all sorts of exaggerations and lost their collective nerve. You see, some people want a little more than CGI and explosions. Fanboys don't."

"Wow, Grandpa! I had no idea it could be that bad. I hope it never happens again. Grandpa, what did you think of 'The Man of Steel?'

Direction: Very good, for the most part. The handheld cam didn't bother me, although they should've eased up with the sudden zoom-ins whenever any kind of flying vehicle was shown.

Story: It was on par with BB, a discovery journey with a serviceable villain plot.

Screenplay: VERY problematic, disjointed. It made logical sense, but thematically it was incomplete, dare I say lazy. It was like a 2-hour montage of awesome scenes that never quite stuck. It's all there, it's just missing some glue.

Characters: Characters were fine. All of them. Superman underwhelmed me a bit because the theme of "choice" never stuck, so he never really made a choice. He wore the suit and he fought the bad guys. But he was really likeable and noble and optimistic, so it was Superman, so all is good. Lois had stuff to do, she was no damsel in distress, so no idea why she's getting all the flack. Even that chick Jenny was nice.

Themes: Hope and Choice. Not once fleshed out. Nature vs nurture never really played a part in characters' choices or anything. Really superficial, even by Goyer standards.

Performances: Cavill was great, as was Adams. I really liked Diane Lane and the 2 military men, as well as the Hamilton actor. Russel stole the damn show, I loved him so much. Special mention to the other females Ayelet and Antje, especially the latter and the former's cleavage. Costner and Shannon were sleepwalking through their roles, I have no idea why Shannon has inspired all this great villain talk. not even close to being top 10 in my book.

Cinematography: Top notch. Desaturated look clicked for me. The movie is gorgeous, and the fact that it was shot in film makes it even more so.

Music: Very very good and the more scifi parts of the soundtracks made for awe-inspiring moments. The heroic parts were somewhat subdued, though, for some reason.

Action: Top notch. Best ever in a CBM. Nobody will be able to touch it other than Snyder himself. Nothing more to say.

CGI: Excellent for the most part. Tbh, I didn't expect them to be SO good. Bravo.

Editing: The flashbacks weren't organically inserted in the main narrative, imo. It tried to be BB, but whereas in the latter the flashbacks were inserted strategically to maximize character development, story and themes, in MoS they're inserted in a "by the way" manner. The movie is choppy after Krypton and before Zod's arrival, but not necessarily in a bad way. I rather enjoyed Lois and Clark intercut in the latter's spaceship.

Overall: I liked it, I really really enjoyed it, but it's not reaching the genius levels of the Dark Knight Trilogy, imo. It is a good start for a Superman franchise and if they decide to **** it up by establishing a DCU, it's an even greater start. But Goyer will always need a Nolan, just like Gotham will always need a Batman. Thank God Jonah Nolan wrote the 3rd act, because that's when the movie shone, especially the ending, which took the movie a couple of notches up in my eyes. Superman killing Zod was one of the best ideas ever, and it has to take Superman to interesting places. I'm 100% behind their choice, Nolan was in the wrong to fight it, imo. I'm excited for MoS2, I jsut wish MoS was even better than it was. It's like... TASM, only (much) better. It does NOT deserve 55%. It deserves 75-80%.

The action scenes were overkill but i didn't have that much problem with it. I just ignore the collateral damage. I know that in a "realistic" movie like this is presented the death toll caused by Superman would be high. I ignored it.

Cavill wasn't really that good.

Amy Adams was one of the weakest incarnations of Lois Lane.

Zod and Faora were both good.

Pa Kent was unlikeable and wrong.

The tornado scene was ridiculous. What kind of lesson is this supposed to teach?

Overall a very weirdly structured movie.

The traditional Clark Kent/Superman thing isn't going to work. To many people have seen him. The military knows he is from Smallville.

Goyer is a hack.

I didn't even feel like Superman. Even Smallville felt more like the classic Superman. I don't know. I cannot even hate the movie. It's roughly 35% good stuff, 40% **** and 25% mediocre.

Direction: Very good, for the most part. The handheld cam didn't bother me, although they should've eased up with the sudden zoom-ins whenever any kind of flying vehicle was shown.

Story: It was on par with BB, a discovery journey with a serviceable villain plot.

Screenplay: VERY problematic, disjointed. It made logical sense, but thematically it was incomplete, dare I say lazy. It was like a 2-hour montage of awesome scenes that never quite stuck. It's all there, it's just missing some glue.

Characters: Characters were fine. All of them. Superman underwhelmed me a bit because the theme of "choice" never stuck, so he never really made a choice. He wore the suit and he fought the bad guys. But he was really likeable and noble and optimistic, so it was Superman, so all is good. Lois had stuff to do, she was no damsel in distress, so no idea why she's getting all the flack. Even that chick Jenny was nice.

Themes: Hope and Choice. Not once fleshed out. Nature vs nurture never really played a part in characters' choices or anything. Really superficial, even by Goyer standards.

Performances: Cavill was great, as was Adams. I really liked Diane Lane and the 2 military men, as well as the Hamilton actor. Russel stole the damn show, I loved him so much. Special mention to the other females Ayelet and Antje, especially the latter and the former's cleavage. Costner and Shannon were sleepwalking through their roles, I have no idea why Shannon has inspired all this great villain talk. not even close to being top 10 in my book.

Cinematography: Top notch. Desaturated look clicked for me. The movie is gorgeous, and the fact that it was shot in film makes it even more so.

Music: Very very good and the more scifi parts of the soundtracks made for awe-inspiring moments. The heroic parts were somewhat subdued, though, for some reason.

Action: Top notch. Best ever in a CBM. Nobody will be able to touch it other than Snyder himself. Nothing more to say.

CGI: Excellent for the most part. Tbh, I didn't expect them to be SO good. Bravo.

Editing: The flashbacks weren't organically inserted in the main narrative, imo. It tried to be BB, but whereas in the latter the flashbacks were inserted strategically to maximize character development, story and themes, in MoS they're inserted in a "by the way" manner. The movie is choppy after Krypton and before Zod's arrival, but not necessarily in a bad way. I rather enjoyed Lois and Clark intercut in the latter's spaceship.

Overall: I liked it, I really really enjoyed it, but it's not reaching the genius levels of the Dark Knight Trilogy, imo. It is a good start for a Superman franchise and if they decide to **** it up by establishing a DCU, it's an even greater start. But Goyer will always need a Nolan, just like Gotham will always need a Batman. Thank God Jonah Nolan wrote the 3rd act, because that's when the movie shone, especially the ending, which took the movie a couple of notches up in my eyes. Superman killing Zod was one of the best ideas ever, and it has to take Superman to interesting places. I'm 100% behind their choice, Nolan was in the wrong to fight it, imo. I'm excited for MoS2, I jsut wish MoS was even better than it was. It's like... TASM, only (much) better. It does NOT deserve 55%. It deserves 75-80%.

7.5-8/10 (will decide on 2nd viewing)

Jonah Nolan had nothing to do with the film. From what I've read and re-read he had a look at the script and passed because he was working on Person of Interest.

__________________
In fearful day in raging night, no evil shall escape my sight. When all seems lost and hope ignites, beware my power, Blue Lantern's light.

I've had my problems with starting with Kryptonian villains. Considering the destruction it's one of those stories were the main message is, "Earth is better off without Superman" because no Superman no invasion.

So they should have included something like the bad guys would have come to Earth anyway.

I love the hate this movie gets! for every 5 people that love it there is 1 guy/girl who hates on it and tries so hard to convince the people who do love it that its really not good. I hope that all the people who didnt like this film and nitpicked and whines and complains doesnt go see the sequel. That way all we will have is nice conversations from the people who truly enjoy it. Movies are never perfect but I swear you would think people just made up their minds that it was going to be horrible or they read reviews and posted exactly the same feelings some critic had when they have no clue what they are talking about and cant form opinions for themselves.

I've had my problems with starting with Kryptonian villains. Considering the destruction it's one of those stories were the main message is, "Earth is better off without Superman" because no Superman no invasion.

So they should have included something like the bad guys would have come to Earth anyway.

They did. Zod was going to all the old outposts including the one on earth. He just didn't get to it yet. Clark activating the ship sped up the process but it was bound to happen anyway.

First of all,i loved the decision to make the film a ''first contact'' type of film rather than the usual superhero theatrics.The script doesn't shy from asking difficult philosophical questions,from both perspectives,ours and theirs.What if we encountered a basically invincible demi-god with the power to destroy everything?Can you ever trust such a being?Can you ever feel safe knowing that such a being is somewhere around?On the other hand,if we did encounter such a being,there would be a tremendous amount of fear,paranoia,suicides,anarchy...mo st religions would basically be falsified and that is going to turn the world in chaos.Not only there IS life out there,but they make us look like primitive Neanderthals with their technology and science.One scene in particular that left a big impact on me was the flashback between Kal and his father,where he asks whether he should have left the kids to drown and he answers...maybe.Now at face value,it's a ridiculous answer because we are talking about innocent children's life.But considering the consequences of such a deed,a turmoil from which there is no going back,the question and the answer become a lot more morally complicated.That kind of morally ambiguity is again presented at the end where Superman has to decide between killing Zod or letting the family(and countless others that would follow) die.It's an incredibly difficult choice but it's obvious that Zod will not stop,not now,not ever,like any militant sociopath from Hitler to Osama,he's absolutely convinced in his ideals and would follow them to his death.

Unlike Bane/Talia,The Lizard or Loki,Zod was a villain that had a clear goal,clearly defined purpose and an understandable behavior.The idea that Kryptonians were pre-determined in their life-choices is very interesting and scary.Zod was morally innocent since he had no choice in becoming who he was,he was bred to be a warrior who defends his people and he did so for the whole duration of the film.From our perspective he was a violent sociopath but Kryptonian perspective he was simply following his destiny.

I really liked the understated relationship between Kal and Louis,he's basically prince charming times 100,a selfless hero who looks like a cover model so it's easily understandable why she falls for him,especially after he saves her life and acts like it's nothing,while she was someone Kal could really trust,something he was battling with from childhood.She was tough,courageous and not the usual damsel in distress that we're accustomed in these type of movies.

I really don't understand the complaints about the third act,''mindless destruction'',etc...is there a mindful type of destruction?Was Hiroshima a nice type of destruction?Is there any war/armed conflict in which there are not countless lifes lost,whole cities and even countries ruined?Compared to real wars,this was nothing,a block of a city.We're talking about an alien invasion,two demi-gods fighting at the peak of their powers...what would they do,settle their differences by playing a chess game?No stakes?There were no stakes in The Avengers where the aliens were so weak,they were getting killed by arrows and bullets.Here,if Superman doesn't destroy the world maker,our whole atmosphere is changed and the whole of humanity dies.Bigger stakes than that,i would be hard pressed to find.Especially since humans were completely helpless against Zod and his followers.

Another thing i liked was the competence and bravery of human beings,Perry White's selfless decision to forfeit his life rather than leave his employee to die,the soldiers who weren't mindless drones,who were following duties but were also thinking with their own heads,at first not differentiate between Kal and Zod's soldiers but after a while recognizing that he fights for us not against us.

I had a couple of small issues of course,i would have loved to see 10 more minutes at the beginning,building Zod's/Jor's relationship a little more,seeing Krypton in peace time rather than jump right into the end of the planet,the lighting was very annoying,a screen glare was apparent every 5 minutes and some of the editing was a bit too quick and muddled.

But other than that,i can't wait for a sequel,especially after the double-meaning wink at the end with ''welcome to the planet''.He's now one of us and i can't wait to see him in his next adventures.

They did. Zod was going to all the old outposts including the one on earth. He just didn't get to it yet. Clark activating the ship sped up the process but it was bound to happen anyway.

I feel like the complainers didnt actually watch the film. They didnt pay attention to anything. Angry Joe's review on Youtube explains it so well and cover the nit picking cry babies about this film. This movie was never about being a Donner copy, its not the comic book Superman. This is a modern day Superman that deals with real issues. Superman cant save everyone and people are going to die. Superman was thrust into being a savior in this movie, he had no time to fully train or hone his skills. He did save people in this movie and gave others hope. Lois fought and wasnt some floozy in her night gown drooling over Superman. This Superman is perfect and he did make a huge choice that will define his character in the next movies. i think this movie was awesome in showing how hard it is to be Superman. to be looked up to save everyone and be every where at once. He cant do that all the time. When people realize that and stop comparing this to Donner and Reeves they will see a different fresh approach to the character.

First of all,i loved the decision to make the film a ''first contact'' type of film rather than the usual superhero theatrics.The script doesn't shy from asking difficult philosophical questions,from both perspectives,ours and theirs.What if we encountered a basically invincible demi-god with the power to destroy everything?Can you ever trust such a being?Can you ever feel safe knowing that such a being is somewhere around?On the other hand,if we did encounter such a being,there would be a tremendous amount of fear,paranoia,suicides,anarchy...mo st religions would basically be falsified and that is going to turn the world in chaos.Not only there IS life out there,but they make us look like primitive Neanderthals with their technology and science.One scene in particular that left a big impact on me was the flashback between Kal and his father,where he asks whether he should have left the kids to drown and he answers...maybe.Now at face value,it's a ridiculous answer because we are talking about innocent children's life.But considering the consequences of such a deed,a turmoil from which there is no going back,the question and the answer become a lot more morally complicated.That kind of morally ambiguity is again presented at the end where Superman has to decide between killing Zod or letting the family(and countless others that would follow) die.It's an incredibly difficult choice but it's obvious that Zod will not stop,not now,not ever,like any militant sociopath from Hitler to Osama,he's absolutely convinced in his ideals and would follow them to his death.

Unlike Bane/Talia,The Lizard or Loki,Zod was a villain that had a clear goal,clearly defined purpose and an understandable behavior.The idea that Kryptonians were pre-determined in their life-choices is very interesting and scary.Zod was morally innocent since he had no choice in becoming who he was,he was bred to be a warrior who defends his people and he did so for the whole duration of the film.From our perspective he was a violent sociopath but Kryptonian perspective he was simply following his destiny.

I really liked the understated relationship between Kal and Louis,he's basically prince charming times 100,a selfless hero who looks like a cover model so it's easily understandable why she falls for him,especially after he saves her life and acts like it's nothing,while she was someone Kal could really trust,something he was battling with from childhood.She was tough,courageous and not the usual damsel in distress that we're accustomed in these type of movies.

I really don't understand the complaints about the third act,''mindless destruction'',etc...is there a mindful type of destruction?Was Hiroshima a nice type of destruction?Is there any war/armed conflict in which there are not countless lifes lost,whole cities and even countries ruined?Compared to real wars,this was nothing,a block of a city.We're talking about an alien invasion,two demi-gods fighting at the peak of their powers...what would they do,settle their differences by playing a chess game?No stakes?There were no stakes in The Avengers where the aliens were so weak,they were getting killed by arrows and bullets.Here,if Superman doesn't destroy the world maker,our whole atmosphere is changed and the whole of humanity dies.Bigger stakes than that,i would be hard pressed to find.Especially since humans were completely helpless against Zod and his followers.

Another thing i liked was the competence and bravery of human beings,Perry White's selfless decision to forfeit his life rather than leave his employee to die,the soldiers who weren't mindless drones,who were following duties but were also thinking with their own heads,at first not differentiate between Kal and Zod's soldiers but after a while recognizing that he fights for us not against us.

I had a couple of small issues of course,i would have loved to see 10 more minutes at the beginning,building Zod's/Jor's relationship a little more,seeing Krypton in peace time rather than jump right into the end of the planet,the lighting was very annoying,a screen glare was apparent every 5 minutes and some of the editing was a bit too quick and muddled.

But other than that,i can't wait for a sequel,especially after the double-meaning wink at the end with ''welcome to the planet''.He's now one of us and i can't wait to see him in his next adventures.

You make some great points. The people who complain about the Metropolis battle dont seem to realize that you cant have a scenario where no one dies. People were going to die and Superman cant save them all. He saved billions by stopping the World Engine and the military helped send the Kryptonians to the Phantom Zone. He saved billions but thats ignored because people died in Metropolis. Also how could Superman avoid Zod's fate?? There was no way to send him back to the PZ, kryptonite was not discovered yet and he didnt have the luxury of having the red sun of Krypton all bottled up for him like Superman had is Donnerverse. So complainers how was Superman going to keep Zod from killing everyone like he claimed he was going to do??!! Most answers are he could fly him into space, Really?! and do what with him?? Also Zod said either you die or I do.

The complaints about Pa Kent are so atrocious and dumb founded. Other than Smallville we never got to see how hard it was for the Kents to deal with Clark and his issues with him not being from here and having to deal with his powers. Donners Superman didnt show Pa Kent helping Clark with any of his problems or give any advice to encourage. Snyder showed that it was not easy for the Kents and that they did the best they could to raise Clark and mold him into the man he was destined to be. When Pa Kent said Maybe to Clark asking if he should have let them die, he paused and wasnt sure of his answer but he knew that a few lives being saved might not be worth the global outcome in the end if he the world found out. And he was right, people are afraid of what they dont understand. I dont understand what people wanted out of this movie beyond what it gave us. Did it have some issues-yes but not the way the critics who bashed it and the negative people on here.

A comment left on redlettermedia's MoS review by someone named Ass Hat:

Butthurt. OH MY GOD look at all this butthurt. This is butthurt that I will be able to tell my grandkids about someday. Sitting on the front porch with a glass of lemonade in my hand, while little Timmy and little Sally run up to me wide-eyed...

"Grandpa, Grandpa! Tell us a story!"

"About my time in World War III?"

"No! No! About the great Butthurt Act of 2013 that we learned about in history class today!"

"Ah. What a dark time it was. Well, kids. Many, many years ago, when I was a much younger man...there was one of those moving pictures that came out that they called 'Man of Steel.' This moving picture was a retelling of the age-old story of Superman. When it came out, the movie was hated by many and loved by many. While many were respectful towards opposing views, some reacted with venomous words. They are nearly extinct today, but back then they were known as "Fanboys" and they were a loathsome, virginal lot. You see, another man about 35 or so years earlier made a couple of these Superman pictures. The people who hated this 'Man of Steel' were accused relentlessly of being loyal to the early Donner pictures when it wasn't the case. The ones who hated it complained of such fundamental things. Things that were necessary for every other picture ever made, yet the Fanboys convinced themselves that these things did not apply to 'Man of Steel.' Things such as the writing. Characters with purpose. Structure. Feelings! Nevertheless, the Fanboys were convinced that those who hated it were "stupid and just didn't get it," and given a black "S" to wear on our clothing.

"You mean that people didn't like it because it had no soul, Grandpa?"

"That's correct, my dear. You see, this was back in the time when these things became less common place. Writers were losing their touch and the almighty box office opening weekend was the only consideration, and moving pictures became soulless, noisy things without heart or emotion. People began mistaking emotional investment with characters with slow-motion explosions with sad orchestral music and choirs playing over them. Or a slow-motion image of a man underwater or in space with his arms spread like Christ. They became confused and manipulated. Standards bottomed out. Things like this are what the Fanboys came to expect and demand, violently if they had to."

"So...so what happened?" I lit my pipe.

"Well, Timmy, things changed. They started calling this sort of thing "ADHD cinema." Films that celebrated style over substance without any sense of adventure or hope. Those who disliked 'Man of Steel' were forced into camps. They were tortured and made to watch the picture several times and repeat things like "This is not Richard Donner's Superman" and "I didn't understand the great 'Man of Steel's' true genius" thousands of times over, daily. However, they revolted. The case was made because they had science on their side. An institution back then known as Rotten Tomatoes, before they replaced the executive branch of the government, came to our aid. They argued that the film was universally "rotten" with a score of 56%. The Fanboys argued that the system was flawed. They were right, but their argument of "your just stipid adn gay" didn't hold up. They knew they had lost."

"So what happened then?"

"Well, this series of events brought about the Butthurt Act of 2013. It put into law that any Fanboy who decides to slander someone in disagreement is banished into the exile of watching another moving picture from 1998 called 'Godzilla.' You see, this 'Godzilla' picture had the same flaws as 'Man of Steel,' yet no one criticized anyone for not liking it as it had no support. The 'Godzilla' picture was also a reinvention of a classic yarn. It was about a radioactive lizard who destroys civilizations along with great numbers of their people. This picture also lacked any kind of creativity in its writing, characters, or story just the same as 'Man of Steel.' Yet with that 'Man of Steel' picture, people were told that they weren't smart enough to understand the brilliance of the poor writing. They were told they were partial to Marvel, a group who were also in the superhero business. The moral of the story is, kids...people who don't like something usually have good reasons for doing so. Fanboys who like these pictures were never able to understand that and made up all sorts of exaggerations and lost their collective nerve. You see, some people want a little more than CGI and explosions. Fanboys don't."

"Wow, Grandpa! I had no idea it could be that bad. I hope it never happens again. Grandpa, what did you think of 'The Man of Steel?'

hahahahaahah...they gave that whole dialogue some serious thought! It's funny how the term "fanboy" is thrown around these days though. If you didn't like the movie or had any complaints you're called a "purist" and "fanboy". Then in this scenario above if you liked the film and defend it you're also called a "fanboy". Let's just retire the term, anyone posting on internet message boards about a comic book based film has no right to call another poster a "fanboy".

The complaints about Pa Kent are so atrocious and dumb founded. Other than Smallville we never got to see how hard it was for the Kents to deal with Clark and his issues with him not being from here and having to deal with his powers. Donners Superman didnt show Pa Kent helping Clark with any of his problems or give any advice to encourage. Snyder showed that it was not easy for the Kents and that they did the best they could to raise Clark and mold him into the man he was destined to be. When Pa Kent said Maybe to Clark asking if he should have let them die, he paused and wasnt sure of his answer but he knew that a few lives being saved might not be worth the global outcome in the end if he the world found out. And he was right, people are afraid of what they dont understand. I dont understand what people wanted out of this movie beyond what it gave us. Did it have some issues-yes but not the way the critics who bashed it and the negative people on here.

Sorry but it was most certainly bad advice. And his concern was never well founded as many people who Clark saved realized he must have been different but it never caused an uproar or the end of civilization . Bad advice at worst, dubious advice at best.

I fall right down the middle in terms of my opinion which seems pretty rare for this movie. Here's what I thought:

I LIKED
- The cast were mostly very good, they were a couple of casting choices that I wasn't amazed by but generally everyone was excellent.
- The score was great.
- The Krypton scenes at the beginning were very cool.
- Cavill was great as Superman, looked the part and was very likeable in the role.
- The scene where Zod transmits his message to Earth about his intentions and all the power goes out was fantastic. The power going out and the "white noise" effect of the message was eerie and quite scary, the only bit of the film which roused me into thinking "wow this is really awesome!'

I DIDN'T LIKE
- The flashbacks. They just didn't seem to fit, I think perhaps they were too frequent and not long enough to have a meaningful effect. As an audience we were taken back, shown kid Superman adapting to his powers, do something heroic (the Superman theme starts playing) and then after what seemed like only 60 seconds before we get to the climax we're back to the present. I felt like I had flashback blue balls.
- Lois Lane.
- The action. Never before have I prayed for an action sequence to stop to save my senses until this movie. It just seemed like it was minute after minute of relentless explosions, everyone zipping around so fast I couldn't see half of it. It was like watching a pin ball machine, and Smallville was the table. The Matrix Revolutions handled two super beings fighting far better, and The Avengers handled city wide destruction far better. I expected better of Zak Snyder in this department.
- Superman didn't spectacularly save ANYONE in this movie, there was no moment to rival the amazing plane catching sequence in Superman Returns, where you were like "Woah, only Superman could do that!".
- The greyed out colour palette. Realistic doesn't have to mean dull as dishwater.
- Zod. I like Michael Shannon alot but his Zod was just too much of a standard issue shouty villain. It's his under the surface,creepy, menace that makes him such a tense and powerful character in Boardwalk Empire.
- Zod's death. As far as I'm concerned Superman shouldn't break peoples' necks.

After all that you would think I hated it, but generally I thought it was ok. It was far from spectacular though and at this moment in time don't really care about a sequel or a Justice League film. I'll stick with the Marvel universe.

I love the hate this movie gets! for every 5 people that love it there is 1 guy/girl who hates on it and tries so hard to convince the people who do love it that its really not good. I hope that all the people who didnt like this film and nitpicked and whines and complains doesnt go see the sequel. That way all we will have is nice conversations from the people who truly enjoy it. Movies are never perfect but I swear you would think people just made up their minds that it was going to be horrible or they read reviews and posted exactly the same feelings some critic had when they have no clue what they are talking about and cant form opinions for themselves.

Ha not exactly. Some of us had insanely high expectations and were just somewhat disappointed. I love the absolutism of people who thought this movie was "the best thing ever". "If you don't feel the same way well then you're just crazy and can't think for yourself, so there" . All movies can be criticized and this film is certainly not above it. This is a "review" thread, not a "only positive stuff or you're lame thread". So yeah...descent film with some issues.

The easy answer is "Clark is still a young man". Young people don't always know exactly what to do in a given situation,

Here's the thing about that scene. I don't think Jonathan's first line, "Get your mother to safety" is an accident. Jonathan wants Clark and Ma to get to safety. Like its his instinct to rescue the dog, it's just the man's instinct to avoid putting people in harm's way, even his (for all they know) indestructible son. And we don't actually know the level of Clark's indestructibility at that point, so it's arguable that Jonathan could well think the tornado might kill Clark, who, as we see, Jonathan considers pretty darn important.

A young man who even in his pre-teen years already rescued people and demonstrated super strength if not invulnerability. So yeah, the faster young man going to the dog or seeing his dad delay and not trying to go to him sooner just seemed like poor staging in the seen. I see your point and it's a valid one regarding the importance Johnathan placed on his son and not wanting to place him in danger but Clark himself has already demonstrated a willing/self sacrificing spirit. So him making the call to run to his dad BEFORE his dad waves him off like when he's trapped in the truck would've seemed more in character. The scene fails to convince me that those specific circumstances would have ever occurred considering what we've already been shown regarding the people involved. Just doesn't ring true for me.

I get that a lot of people loved that scene and were emotionally moved by it. I think that's great, at least it worked for them. I was more like "wait what?! but couldn't he have just...that doesn't even...it was a stupid dog...but why..." Yeah it just took me right out of the movie. I'm happy it worked for other people though.

a comment left on redlettermedia's mos review by someone named ass hat:

Butthurt. Oh my god look at all this butthurt. This is butthurt that i will be able to tell my grandkids about someday. Sitting on the front porch with a glass of lemonade in my hand, while little timmy and little sally run up to me wide-eyed...

"grandpa, grandpa! Tell us a story!"

"about my time in world war iii?"

"no! No! About the great butthurt act of 2013 that we learned about in history class today!"

"ah. What a dark time it was. Well, kids. Many, many years ago, when i was a much younger man...there was one of those moving pictures that came out that they called 'man of steel.' this moving picture was a retelling of the age-old story of superman. When it came out, the movie was hated by many and loved by many. While many were respectful towards opposing views, some reacted with venomous words. They are nearly extinct today, but back then they were known as "fanboys" and they were a loathsome, virginal lot. You see, another man about 35 or so years earlier made a couple of these superman pictures. The people who hated this 'man of steel' were accused relentlessly of being loyal to the early donner pictures when it wasn't the case. The ones who hated it complained of such fundamental things. Things that were necessary for every other picture ever made, yet the fanboys convinced themselves that these things did not apply to 'man of steel.' things such as the writing. Characters with purpose. Structure. Feelings! Nevertheless, the fanboys were convinced that those who hated it were "stupid and just didn't get it," and given a black "s" to wear on our clothing.

"you mean that people didn't like it because it had no soul, grandpa?"

"that's correct, my dear. You see, this was back in the time when these things became less common place. Writers were losing their touch and the almighty box office opening weekend was the only consideration, and moving pictures became soulless, noisy things without heart or emotion. People began mistaking emotional investment with characters with slow-motion explosions with sad orchestral music and choirs playing over them. Or a slow-motion image of a man underwater or in space with his arms spread like christ. They became confused and manipulated. Standards bottomed out. Things like this are what the fanboys came to expect and demand, violently if they had to."

"so...so what happened?" i lit my pipe.

"well, timmy, things changed. They started calling this sort of thing "adhd cinema." films that celebrated style over substance without any sense of adventure or hope. Those who disliked 'man of steel' were forced into camps. They were tortured and made to watch the picture several times and repeat things like "this is not richard donner's superman" and "i didn't understand the great 'man of steel's' true genius" thousands of times over, daily. However, they revolted. The case was made because they had science on their side. An institution back then known as rotten tomatoes, before they replaced the executive branch of the government, came to our aid. They argued that the film was universally "rotten" with a score of 56%. The fanboys argued that the system was flawed. They were right, but their argument of "your just stipid adn gay" didn't hold up. They knew they had lost."

"so what happened then?"

"well, this series of events brought about the butthurt act of 2013. It put into law that any fanboy who decides to slander someone in disagreement is banished into the exile of watching another moving picture from 1998 called 'godzilla.' you see, this 'godzilla' picture had the same flaws as 'man of steel,' yet no one criticized anyone for not liking it as it had no support. The 'godzilla' picture was also a reinvention of a classic yarn. It was about a radioactive lizard who destroys civilizations along with great numbers of their people. This picture also lacked any kind of creativity in its writing, characters, or story just the same as 'man of steel.' yet with that 'man of steel' picture, people were told that they weren't smart enough to understand the brilliance of the poor writing. They were told they were partial to marvel, a group who were also in the superhero business. The moral of the story is, kids...people who don't like something usually have good reasons for doing so. Fanboys who like these pictures were never able to understand that and made up all sorts of exaggerations and lost their collective nerve. You see, some people want a little more than cgi and explosions. Fanboys don't."

"wow, grandpa! I had no idea it could be that bad. I hope it never happens again. Grandpa, what did you think of 'the man of steel?'

Ha not exactly. Some of us had insanely high expectations and were just somewhat disappointed. I love the absolutism of people who thought this movie was "the best thing ever". "If you don't feel the same way well then you're just crazy and can't think for yourself, so there" . All movies can be criticized and this film is certainly not above it. This is a "review" thread, not a "only positive stuff or you're lame thread". So yeah...descent film with some issues.

its not about making your opinion its about how some people try to convince others it wasnt that good. there is a difference. If you didnt like it or kind of liked it thats fine but people on here to try to convince other wise